Next question, dear Dr Craig, this question is about the concept of a necessary being. I'm not sure how a concrete being can be

self-explanatory. How is it any different from a brute fact? You can posit that an

eternal God explains all of reality, but the question still arises,

why does this specific eternal being exist in the first place?

If your response is that the being is self-explanatory, then to me you're just saying

God is a brute fact. Maybe I can explain it more clearly with an example. Let's say that the atheist posits an eternal

immaterial timeless automatic a multiverse generator as the explanation of all

reality you then ask but why does this as the explanation of all reality.

You then ask, but why does this specific generator exist?

And why does it have this specific nature to automatically generate a multiverse.

The atheist then responds, it's self-explanatory.

Would you be satisfied?

This atheistic position seems to explain the origins of the universe just as well as your God hypothesis

Greg in the United States.

I would say that God's existence is not just a brute fact Greg that is to say a fact that

has no explanation rather I think that God exists by a necessity of his own nature and that in virtue

of that he is a metaphysically necessary being, a being whose non-existence is impossible. It belongs to his very nature to exist. And that's

different from saying that something just exists brutally without an explanation.

To see this point, the philosopher Richard Swinburn believes that God's existence is a brute

fact. Swinburn thinks it's possible that God not exists. There are worlds in

which there is no God. So God's existence is contingent, but it's just an inexplicable brute fact. And Swinburne would say that

God's existence is simpler than the universe and so it's a better candidate for the ultimate explanation of everything

...